> Enforcement of property rights is force used in self-defense, not initiation of force. Again, the difference according to Rand is the difference between moral interaction (voluntary association) and immoral interaction (involuntary association). There is no ambiguity here.
Around again. The ambiguity becomes the problem when the ambiguity is who owns the property. In the wonderful place where no property disputes arise, this is indeed unambiguous, but I'd love for you to tell me where that place is, because it sure isn't the place where I live. For example, I bought my house and my property from a company that bought it from some farmer who got it (and so on). The U.S. government supports my property rights as they apply to this piece of land. If I go back far enough, though, it's safe to assume that the land upon which my house sits was not under the control of the U.S. Government. Now, the Native Americans who lived on it have a claim, and so do the French and British governments, but the U.S. government doesn't enforce those rights, and none of those states is in a position to overrule them. So, a legitimate Randian claim can be laid by at least four entities, and "use of force for self defense" doesn't discern whose defense matters most. Therefore, your comment still does not address my comment, which defines that "defense" is determined by force, and so "enforce" and "eliminate" are subjective. How does your philosophy stand up to this sort of disagreement, at least in the real world?
> You seem to be implying that force in defense of property is somehow different than force in defense of one's own body. Quite the contrary, your own body is the first and most important property you will ever own.
I'm not implying it, I'm stating it straight out. In the case of defense of one's body, it's indisputably yours (ruling out slavery, which your model does). In the case of land or other real property, there are many times where there is dispute as to whose property it is.
> This would have to be considered entrapment. The property may have been acquired through voluntary means, but the act of entrapping is a clear initiation of force.
And if the entrapment was unintentional, for example upon my inheritance of the land? I can think of a number of situations that would cause this event that don't involve active entrapment.
> Yes, stealing is clearly an initiation of force. However, I can't imagine this scenario occuring in all but the most unlikely of situations, like being stranded on a deserted island. But you are correct.
Then you're not being very imaginitive. Substitute virtually any necessary good for "food" in the example (like needing an appendectomy when the only doctor in range won't do it) and you'll see that it's not only likely but quite common.
> Rand would assert that unless the "communal" or "floating" rights were engaged involuntarily (through force), there is no problem.
What if (as is what really happened in the Midwest) the problem springs from a misunderstanding? For example, when a homesteader wanted a piece of land to farm, he'd pay the local natives a fee to have them move, thereby buying the property. The problem is that the natives' ideas of property rights were more communal, and so they took the fee as a "please go somewhere else for a while" payment. When they'd return to the area, they'd simply take up residence on the same land again, because to them property rights only extended to actual occupation, so as long as they stayed far enough from the homesteader's house they could by their rules go back to living on the land nearby. Meanwhile, the farmsteader thinks his payment meant that he owned all that land (likely to farm it) and now the natives were living in the middle of his fields. This is where the term "Indian giver" largely came from. Now, you've got two groups (the natives and the colonists) who are in direct dispute over land right
> First, government does not "create" property, nor does it create the moral right to own property.
That's not relevant. Government enforces property rights, or fails to enforce them. My original statement was, "Do you not realize that in order to "enforce" property rights, you must do so by force?" and your comment does not address this, as there's no mention in my comment that the government creates property rights, only that enforcement of property rights involves force when two parties disagree about a given right to property.
> Second, you don't seem to understand the difference between "initiation of force" and "force in self-defense". They are opposites. The first is immoral; the second is not. Rand's philosphy forbids the first, and approves the second.
Again, you start with the "you don't understand..." stuff. Perhaps I disagree with your definition of "defense"? Force in defense of property rights is not the same as force in self defense. To separate them, think of a case where a property right clearly but indirectly infringes on another person's life, liberty or freedom. If you own a house, and I buy all the land around your house, then I can tell you you're not allowed to enter my property, and by your description of morality I've not only not committed any offense, but I have the right to "defend" my property rights by forbidding you to leave your property by passing through mine. By Rand's measure, I have committed no initiation of force, so I must be acting morally, and I do so with her (and your) approval. In another extreme example, I have enough food for two, and you have none. You must steal it from me if you are to survive, but again, Dear Ayn doesn't concern herself with this, because again, I'm not initiating force against you. You're immoral for trying to survive, and I have the right to defend my surplus from your initiation of force.
Starts to fall apart at the edges, eh? This is the major flaw that undoes Ayn Rand. She does not discriminate between moral defense and immoral defense, and the problem is that the real world is full of immoral defenses. It takes very little searching to discover examples of one party owning what another party requires for survival, and that first party not providing it even if it does not threaten their own survival. Her ideas also cannot compensate for any ideal of property right that doesn't fit the "Western" model, like communal rights, or floating rights (the Native American nations had some very different ideas about how land rights work, and they don't ken with Rand's ideas at all). In short, I find her ideas to be woefully inadequate for real world application.
> Do you not realize that in order to "eliminate" property rights, you must do so by force?
Do you not realize that in order to "enforce" property rights, you must do so by force? From where do you think property rights come, if not from governmental enforcement? If I walk into your house and lay down on your couch, what do you do to remove me, if not call the police to initiate the necessary force against me to make me leave? If it's ten degrees outside and I'm likely to die if I don't come in, then it could easily be said that your initiation of force to protect your property rights is lethal force against me. Why doesn't Ms. Rand seem to care about this initiation of force? This is the reason why you can't accuse those who don't agree with Ayn Rand of misunderstanding Ayn Rand. I understand her points but I think she bases them on circular logic and faulty cause and effect, so I disagree with her conclusions. Disavowing slavery as initiation of force and not disavowing private ownership for the same reasons isn't logical. It simply proves that the "initation of force" idea is too simplistic.
> For example, man's most immediate need is always shelter.
Beg pardon? There are places I can live on Earth that don't require shelter, but you'd be hard pressed to tell me the same applies to water. Try again.
> Unless you own your shelter (home), there is no guarantee that you'll have shelter tomorrow. And if you depend on the government for shelter, then you aren't free.
Um, if I "own" my shelter, then I rely on some authority to defend my property rights. Oddly, the name I choose for the entity that defends my property rights to my shelter sounds very much like "government". Therefore, these two statements:
And if you depend on the
government for shelter, then you aren't free.
and
Face it, without property you have no liberty. Without property, you are a slave.
...seem to indicate that whether I have property rights or not, I'm not free. Therefore, the discussion of property rights and their effect on freedom seems to be moot. To take a further reference, you state:
Property that isn't yours can always be taken away.
...seeming to imply that property that is yours can't be taken away. However, it can be, both by the government you rely on to enforce your property rights, and by any entity capable of overpowering that government. So, this would imply that, whether or not you "own your land, still...
Your
liberty, your very life, is in the hands of those who own the property you depend on for survival, whether that be shelter, land, or even the means to get to and from work to earn money to buy food and clothes.
> I can't see it being very difficult to keep a buffer of source IPs and a counter at the router level and stop things that way-- How many systems are used in a DDOS attack? Even a few thousand shouldn't be difficult to spot, flag, and then drop.
The zombies involved in a properly designed DDOS attack will spoof IP addresses. Any given machine will send packets flagged for a wide array of IP addresses, but not the same one(s) over and over again. Since it's very hard to tell until you try to respond to it whether a request is spoofed, you have to respond to all of them to have any chance to respond to legitimate requests. Because they're coming in so fast, most servers simply can't keep up, and so a legitimate user's requests just get lost in a sea of invalid requests. Blocking traffic by IP address would be entirely ineffective at stopping such an attack, because the zombie doesn't use a particular IP address enough, and even if you did block one, it'd still be bombing you on several thousand other addresses. And that's just one machine.
> Couldn't it be that they didn't have the rights to publish this piece online? It's pretty common to break up electronic/world/us/etc. rights in publishing, and it's possible that Time only had rights to publish this in its magazine in print form.
Then leaving in the table of contents reference, and having it link to a page saying the article was removed for copyright reasons, possibly with a link or reference so the interested could find it, would have been appropriate. Trying to make like it never existed is improper journalism.
> We don't have to prove it *isn't* a conspiracy. You have to prove that it *is*.
No, I don't either. Firstly, it was available on the archive, and now not only is the article gone, but the reference to it in the table of contents. This would indicate that its removal was purposeful. Secondly? There is no secondly. I put forward that its removal was because of politics. I have thought over the possibilities, and I can find no reason that fits the circumstances better than TIME removing the document at request. There are certainly many reasons short of governmental conspiracy to remove it, but frankly, that's not my problem with it. My problem with it is that even if it's just one person scrapping it for personal reasons, it's abominable journalism to bury the story. For any reason. If it needed to be removed for copyright/republishing reasons, simply directing the reader from an intact table of contents to a message stating that it was removed to be published elsewhere would have been acceptable. Pretending that it didn't exist is the wrong approach, and it doesn't frighten me so much as it incenses me.
> Isn't it the prerogative of the private sector to publish at will? This is done all the time in print and television media. Should be no surprise that certain things get "omitted" on an Internet site.
It wasn't omitted. It was excised. It was there, and now it isn't, but all the rest of the contents of that issue still are.
> Name one place within the United States you could hit with a missile that'd break our backs like knocking out our main power supply.
Well, I can't, but then I can't imagine this technology running the main grid in any country for a long, long time. Also, building Moon shot rockets is Expensive in the extreme. While I can't name one place, for the money and effort it would take to develop a delivery vehicle of this magnitude, I could pick twenty places in the U.S. instead.
Dang, I don't recall any mention of a lucky break. It's been a long time, so I'll have to dust off my copy and reread that part. It seems my memory is being corrupted a bit by the forces of evil.
> My wife brought up a good point: if the DVD(s) is will be stoked with so many "extra features", how much of an effect will that have on getting people to see the movie? Why bother going at all?
Even seeing a movie like this on a huge TV with a great home theater sound system does not stand up to seeing it on a 30 foot screen. I wait for many, many movies on DVD since they don't lose much going to video, but epics and action films are just more engrossing in the theater.
> What makes LoTR even more ridiculous is the way the ring was taken from whatever-was-his-name : chopped off by a broken sword. Sheesh, that ring must really be powerful. However, nobody seems to
find that a problem.
Two things to consider: first, the broken sword used to cut Sauron's hand off was very powerfully magical, and yet doing the deed was enough to break it, and second, in the battle (this was better addressed in the book than the movie) the Elves present had been using every bit of magical power they could muster in an effort to weaken Sauron's power, and despite the concerted efforts of hundreds of mages of considerable power, they were still only barely successful, and to top it off the ring corrupted Isildur almost as soon as he touched it. After that, the ring knew how long it had to wait for its master to regather his power, then directly affected fate to bring itself back into the flow of history. It corrupted everyone who touched it save one demigod, and even the Istari (Gandalf and Saruman and the few other powerful wizards mentioned) were no match for it. So yeah, it was rather powerful.
> Gandalf is trapped on a tower deep in enemy
territory, and all of a sudden a giant eagle magically comes outta nowhere and delivers him to safety.
Well, Isengard wasn't "deep in enemy territory", it was next to the lands of Rohan (remember that Saruman's treachery was pivotal to the speed that was required to stop him). Also, Gwaihir (the big eagle) didn't come out of nowhere, Gandalf called to him for aid. In the movie (and the book), Gandalf told a moth to fetch Gwaihir.
> Of course, said eagle can't possibly be used elsewhere in the story!
Said eagle is the king of the eagles, and he does indeed take part in the major battle at the end of The Return of the King.
> Why can't Frodo hop on the eagle and fly to Mount Doom?
Because, like the Elves, the eagles didn't much care about the fate of humans in Middle Earth until very late in the battle (when they realized that Sauron represented a threat to more than just the humans), and by that time the eagles were more badly needed to defend Minas Tirith. Also, it's reasonable that the reason Sauron didn't throw an army after Frodo is that Sauron couldn't find Frodo, and Frodo flying across Mordor would have been much easier to find and intercept than Frodo sneaking across Mordor.
> For me, that isn't a good reason. Tell me how long it is beforehand, keep it good and interesting and you can make it as long as you want.
Well, I'm with you 100 percent, and I'll be picking this extended version up posthaste, but the reason for reducing the movie isn't because viewers won't sit that long (although it is for some). The main reason theaters like movies under three hours is because with that time frame, they can get more showings in in a day. If a movie is just 20 minutes over three hours, they lose a showing per day, and that's a lot of ticket sales lost. Movie makers are sensitive to this fact, and so they make directors cut it down to size. In this particular case, Jackson did it under the promise that he'd get to release the mondo-massive version on DVD, which is what this extended set represents.
> Punishment is a difficult option though. Unless police can adequately prove that YOU are the one triggering the light, there's too much room for pedestrian pranksters.
This part is relatively easy. Make the actuator such that it takes the picture, then changes the light. If the strobe isn't on when the picture goes off, the light doesn't react. Therefore, one would need to run the strobe long enough for the camera to see it, which would show where it came from. If it's a pedestrian, the picture would show it, or at very least it'll show that the car in the picture wasn't where the strobe originated.
> Cameras would definitely be a deterrent, but putting up cameras that can take a large-angle photo at decent resolution, and hiring someone to scan each picture looking for suspect license plates would be outrageously expensive.
No real need for large angle of view. Sure, you wouldn't be able to spot that pedestrian, but your picture would clearly show that it wasn't (or was) the car approaching the light, so false positives wouldn't occur nearly as often. Second, since the camera would only trigger a photo when the strobe was activated, not with every passing motorist, there wouldn't be very many pictures to scan. Lastly, with positive enforcement, the number of people who would adopt the device would be relatively low, so your photo recognition people wouldn't get overwhelmed. Remember that not everyone will be using the device right away, and it only takes two or three reports of a thousand dollar fine to discourage the vast majority of the public.
> Oddly, it appears to me that the best response to problems like this is to use technology to redefine the problem. Make signals on the units used by emergency vehicles to affect traffic lights digitally signed and encrypted in a dynamic fashion - then not only would it be difficult to replicate for third parties, but you could use the same means to keep data about emergency vehicle path and response times.
Keeping information about EMV routing is a good idea, but encryption isn't. Firstly, according to the article itself, encryption makes the units more expensive, which is bad for the emergancy departments that really need them. Second, it begs a "solution" which will lead to a constant war for better encryption, which recording companies have shown is not winnable. The solution that works is surprisingly simple. Don't encrypt, and allow any signal to trigger it. However, whenever it triggers, a camera mounted on the unit takes a photograph of the vehicle triggering it, much like photo radar devices or red light cameras. Implement a "three strikes" law that states that if you're not a legitimate emergancy vehicle, and you trigger traffic signals three times, you pay a fine. This eliminates the odd false positive, and limits abuse by making the abusers pay for it. It's cheaper and more effective than encryption, and it uses technology that already exists.
> > But because I don't think about shooting people with guns. Period."
> Do you have children?
Children are more likely by a huge measure to be injured by a gun accident than by an assailant. Also, the number of times where easy access to a gun would prevent injury to a child is vanishingly small. Sorry, but your statement does more for gun control than against it.
> In my state it is legal to shoot someone to prevent them from killing or causing serious bodily harm to another, or to prevent a sexual assualt. (IANAL) I think it is scary that there are people out there who would rather a person be killed, maimed, or raped than for them to fight back effectively.
The number of situations where being in such a situation, having a firearm in such situations, and being able to deploy it properly and effectively all come together are so small that it's not even worth considering. The vast majority of situations in which a person will find himself/herself do not warrant the use of a firearm. The average person on the street is more likely to get into a situation where using deadly force is inappropriate than appropriate. People who carry guns are (understandably) more likely to use them. Gun training is not mandatory, and even if a person takes a gun training course most courses do not deal with situational analysis so people don't learn when using a gun is a good idea, and when it isn't.
The simple fact is that using a firearm is intrinsically dangerous, and in ways that most people, including you by the sound of your screed, do not understand. Based on FBI statistics, you are one hundred times more likely to die in a holdup if you draw a firearm than if you leave it in your pocket, but if you were in a convenience store and a gunman pulled his piece, I'd bet my life you'd pull yours. More importantly, the "one hundred times" measure applies to everyone else in the store with you, so if I'm in the store with you your posession of a gun directly reduces my chances of surviving the holdup. Don't tell me that you'd never have to worry about missing, because despite the fact that it's utter bullshit (marksmen miss sometimes) you can't tell me which of your rounds is mispacked and won't fire properly or when your gun will jam. The simple fact is that the vast, vast majority of people do not know how to use a gun safely (which includes knowing when not to use it), so your statement of fighting back effectively is incorrect.
>...gov't sanctioned murders of their own population were the number one cause of human death last century.
Back this up with something, please. It's a complete lie.
> If only someone would invent a device that would allow even the weak amoung us to be able to fight off one or more tough thugs... it would have to be easy enough to use that it could be mastered with little practice, since most people don't have all day to spend practicing martial arts... it would be have to be reliable... easy to mass produce... storable... hmmm... What a boon to the downtrodden masses of mankind that would be. I wonder what such a device would look like.
Well, it certainly wouldn't look like a pistol. Anyone who thinks that a handgun takes only a little practice is an idiot, you included. Reliable? You're sadly mistaken. You think you can take on multiple opponents with a handgun with just a little training? You think thugs don't use them too? You think that someone who only owns a gun to "defend themselves" is likely to be able to do it effectively, particularly in close quarters? I've fired literally millions of rounds. My target skills are quite well honed, and I would never consider carrying a gun around with me, because I know that it's much, much more likely to be a net detriment to me than a net benefit. It's easy to say that it only takes once for me to need it, but then it only takes once for me to pull it at the wrong time, or get it taken from me, or shoot a bystander by mistake. Sorry, but you're the best argument for gun control I've seen in a long time.
Okay, I have to respond to your post, since it's the most grievously incorrect.
> Seems to me that any amount of guns greater than zero would likely stop a handful of men with boxcutters.
Of course, if it was legal to take a gun on a plane in the U.S., the terrorists would have stuck with boxcutters instead of bringing their own firearms. For religious reason, I can only presume. I can't believe this weak an argument even qualifies.
> Personally, the govt spying on me doesnt bother me a lick, its what is done with the info they collect is where it gets sticky. I have no problem with the govt expanding its powers to spy/probe whatever as long as they are used legitimately.
Well, since the USA PATRIOT Act allows for undisclosed searches, and also prevents disclosure, and removes the need for accountability, how exactly do you propose to ensure that it's all being used legitimately? To toss a perfect example in the mix, it's perfectly legal under the USA PATRIOT Act for the President's staff to conduct an investigation of each of the Democratic presidential candidates, for the purpose of mining up dirt about their personal lives for use against them in the 2004 campaign. Well, okay, it's patently illegal, but then they can do the investigations without judicial oversight and they don't need to disclose that they're doing it, and they can't be held criminally liable for what they dig up, and if by chance they turn up anything that's actually a violation of law, they can enter the evidence in a court and the defending candidate can't have it removed from evidence under the Fourth Amendment. A coworker who is by trade a criminal attorney reviewed the USA PATRIOT Act and this scenario, and could find no legal reason why this couldn't happen. So, your orignal statement is correct, except that there aren't that many people as yet who consider a "Democrat" to be a "criminal". Now, if you intend to tell me that there is nobody in power in the government today who would think of doing such a thing, then I must stop taking your views seriously.
> Of course I am now required by international law to point out that in fact, the US is the only country ever to use a WMD during wartime.
Incorrect. Since the moniker "WMD" is accepted to encompass nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, several countries are in with us, including Germany (mustard gas in WWI and serin gas against civilians in WWII) and France (also gas in WWI). The U.S. is currently the only country ever to use a nuclear device against an enemy in wartime, though (or any other time, for that matter).
The failure here is obvious. Person A takes car, dealer can't sell it to person B. Person A takes MP3, dealer can sell it to person B. Whether it's right or wrong, it's not proper to compare real life goods to intellectual property.
Let's not get out of hand. Firstly, the Falcon and X-wing were atmosphere rated, and second, the TIE fighter was sublight. Not fair at all. The X-wing models stand up very well to regular wind tunnel tests (we did some on hand-built models, although we couldn't get a stable flight airframe) and I'd figure the Falcon would just fall apart in this test because of its rough surface.
Slashdot Mirror
> Enforcement of property rights is force used in self-defense, not initiation of force. Again, the difference according to Rand is the difference between moral interaction (voluntary association) and immoral interaction (involuntary association). There is no ambiguity here.
Around again. The ambiguity becomes the problem when the ambiguity is who owns the property. In the wonderful place where no property disputes arise, this is indeed unambiguous, but I'd love for you to tell me where that place is, because it sure isn't the place where I live. For example, I bought my house and my property from a company that bought it from some farmer who got it (and so on). The U.S. government supports my property rights as they apply to this piece of land. If I go back far enough, though, it's safe to assume that the land upon which my house sits was not under the control of the U.S. Government. Now, the Native Americans who lived on it have a claim, and so do the French and British governments, but the U.S. government doesn't enforce those rights, and none of those states is in a position to overrule them. So, a legitimate Randian claim can be laid by at least four entities, and "use of force for self defense" doesn't discern whose defense matters most. Therefore, your comment still does not address my comment, which defines that "defense" is determined by force, and so "enforce" and "eliminate" are subjective. How does your philosophy stand up to this sort of disagreement, at least in the real world?
> You seem to be implying that force in defense of property is somehow different than force in defense of one's own body. Quite the contrary, your own body is the first and most important property you will ever own.
I'm not implying it, I'm stating it straight out. In the case of defense of one's body, it's indisputably yours (ruling out slavery, which your model does). In the case of land or other real property, there are many times where there is dispute as to whose property it is.
> This would have to be considered entrapment. The property may have been acquired through voluntary means, but the act of entrapping is a clear initiation of force.
And if the entrapment was unintentional, for example upon my inheritance of the land? I can think of a number of situations that would cause this event that don't involve active entrapment.
> Yes, stealing is clearly an initiation of force. However, I can't imagine this scenario occuring in all but the most unlikely of situations, like being stranded on a deserted island. But you are correct.
Then you're not being very imaginitive. Substitute virtually any necessary good for "food" in the example (like needing an appendectomy when the only doctor in range won't do it) and you'll see that it's not only likely but quite common.
> Rand would assert that unless the "communal" or "floating" rights were engaged involuntarily (through force), there is no problem.
What if (as is what really happened in the Midwest) the problem springs from a misunderstanding? For example, when a homesteader wanted a piece of land to farm, he'd pay the local natives a fee to have them move, thereby buying the property. The problem is that the natives' ideas of property rights were more communal, and so they took the fee as a "please go somewhere else for a while" payment. When they'd return to the area, they'd simply take up residence on the same land again, because to them property rights only extended to actual occupation, so as long as they stayed far enough from the homesteader's house they could by their rules go back to living on the land nearby. Meanwhile, the farmsteader thinks his payment meant that he owned all that land (likely to farm it) and now the natives were living in the middle of his fields. This is where the term "Indian giver" largely came from. Now, you've got two groups (the natives and the colonists) who are in direct dispute over land right
> First, government does not "create" property, nor does it create the moral right to own property.
That's not relevant. Government enforces property rights, or fails to enforce them. My original statement was, "Do you not realize that in order to "enforce" property rights, you must do so by force?" and your comment does not address this, as there's no mention in my comment that the government creates property rights, only that enforcement of property rights involves force when two parties disagree about a given right to property.
> Second, you don't seem to understand the difference between "initiation of force" and "force in self-defense". They are opposites. The first is immoral; the second is not. Rand's philosphy forbids the first, and approves the second.
Again, you start with the "you don't understand..." stuff. Perhaps I disagree with your definition of "defense"? Force in defense of property rights is not the same as force in self defense. To separate them, think of a case where a property right clearly but indirectly infringes on another person's life, liberty or freedom. If you own a house, and I buy all the land around your house, then I can tell you you're not allowed to enter my property, and by your description of morality I've not only not committed any offense, but I have the right to "defend" my property rights by forbidding you to leave your property by passing through mine. By Rand's measure, I have committed no initiation of force, so I must be acting morally, and I do so with her (and your) approval. In another extreme example, I have enough food for two, and you have none. You must steal it from me if you are to survive, but again, Dear Ayn doesn't concern herself with this, because again, I'm not initiating force against you. You're immoral for trying to survive, and I have the right to defend my surplus from your initiation of force.
Starts to fall apart at the edges, eh? This is the major flaw that undoes Ayn Rand. She does not discriminate between moral defense and immoral defense, and the problem is that the real world is full of immoral defenses. It takes very little searching to discover examples of one party owning what another party requires for survival, and that first party not providing it even if it does not threaten their own survival. Her ideas also cannot compensate for any ideal of property right that doesn't fit the "Western" model, like communal rights, or floating rights (the Native American nations had some very different ideas about how land rights work, and they don't ken with Rand's ideas at all). In short, I find her ideas to be woefully inadequate for real world application.
Virg
> Do you not realize that in order to "eliminate" property rights, you must do so by force?
Do you not realize that in order to "enforce" property rights, you must do so by force? From where do you think property rights come, if not from governmental enforcement? If I walk into your house and lay down on your couch, what do you do to remove me, if not call the police to initiate the necessary force against me to make me leave? If it's ten degrees outside and I'm likely to die if I don't come in, then it could easily be said that your initiation of force to protect your property rights is lethal force against me. Why doesn't Ms. Rand seem to care about this initiation of force? This is the reason why you can't accuse those who don't agree with Ayn Rand of misunderstanding Ayn Rand. I understand her points but I think she bases them on circular logic and faulty cause and effect, so I disagree with her conclusions. Disavowing slavery as initiation of force and not disavowing private ownership for the same reasons isn't logical. It simply proves that the "initation of force" idea is too simplistic.
Virg
Beg pardon? There are places I can live on Earth that don't require shelter, but you'd be hard pressed to tell me the same applies to water. Try again.
> Unless you own your shelter (home), there is no guarantee that you'll have shelter tomorrow. And if you depend on the government for shelter, then you aren't free.
Um, if I "own" my shelter, then I rely on some authority to defend my property rights. Oddly, the name I choose for the entity that defends my property rights to my shelter sounds very much like "government". Therefore, these two statements: and ...seem to indicate that whether I have property rights or not, I'm not free. Therefore, the discussion of property rights and their effect on freedom seems to be moot. To take a further reference, you state:...seeming to imply that property that is yours can't be taken away. However, it can be, both by the government you rely on to enforce your property rights, and by any entity capable of overpowering that government. So, this would imply that, whether or not you "own your land, still...
Virg
> I can't see it being very difficult to keep a buffer of source IPs and a counter at the router level and stop things that way-- How many systems are used in a DDOS attack? Even a few thousand shouldn't be difficult to spot, flag, and then drop.
The zombies involved in a properly designed DDOS attack will spoof IP addresses. Any given machine will send packets flagged for a wide array of IP addresses, but not the same one(s) over and over again. Since it's very hard to tell until you try to respond to it whether a request is spoofed, you have to respond to all of them to have any chance to respond to legitimate requests. Because they're coming in so fast, most servers simply can't keep up, and so a legitimate user's requests just get lost in a sea of invalid requests. Blocking traffic by IP address would be entirely ineffective at stopping such an attack, because the zombie doesn't use a particular IP address enough, and even if you did block one, it'd still be bombing you on several thousand other addresses. And that's just one machine.
Virg
> Couldn't it be that they didn't have the rights to publish this piece online? It's pretty common to break up electronic/world/us/etc. rights in publishing, and it's possible that Time only had rights to publish this in its magazine in print form.
Then leaving in the table of contents reference, and having it link to a page saying the article was removed for copyright reasons, possibly with a link or reference so the interested could find it, would have been appropriate. Trying to make like it never existed is improper journalism.
Virg
> We don't have to prove it *isn't* a conspiracy. You have to prove that it *is*.
No, I don't either. Firstly, it was available on the archive, and now not only is the article gone, but the reference to it in the table of contents. This would indicate that its removal was purposeful. Secondly? There is no secondly. I put forward that its removal was because of politics. I have thought over the possibilities, and I can find no reason that fits the circumstances better than TIME removing the document at request. There are certainly many reasons short of governmental conspiracy to remove it, but frankly, that's not my problem with it. My problem with it is that even if it's just one person scrapping it for personal reasons, it's abominable journalism to bury the story. For any reason. If it needed to be removed for copyright/republishing reasons, simply directing the reader from an intact table of contents to a message stating that it was removed to be published elsewhere would have been acceptable. Pretending that it didn't exist is the wrong approach, and it doesn't frighten me so much as it incenses me.
Virg
> Isn't it the prerogative of the private sector to publish at will? This is done all the time in print and television media. Should be no surprise that certain things get "omitted" on an Internet site.
It wasn't omitted. It was excised. It was there, and now it isn't, but all the rest of the contents of that issue still are.
Virg
> Folks, not every move by a (liberal) magazine such as Time is because of the Bush cabal and their black helicopter enforcers.
Care to present an alternate reason why it's missing, then?
Virg
> Name one place within the United States you could hit with a missile that'd break our backs like knocking out our main power supply.
Well, I can't, but then I can't imagine this technology running the main grid in any country for a long, long time. Also, building Moon shot rockets is Expensive in the extreme. While I can't name one place, for the money and effort it would take to develop a delivery vehicle of this magnitude, I could pick twenty places in the U.S. instead.
Virg
> I dont recall the moth in the book.
Dang, I don't recall any mention of a lucky break. It's been a long time, so I'll have to dust off my copy and reread that part. It seems my memory is being corrupted a bit by the forces of evil.
Virg
> My wife brought up a good point: if the DVD(s) is will be stoked with so many "extra features", how much of an effect will that have on getting people to see the movie? Why bother going at all?
Even seeing a movie like this on a huge TV with a great home theater sound system does not stand up to seeing it on a 30 foot screen. I wait for many, many movies on DVD since they don't lose much going to video, but epics and action films are just more engrossing in the theater.
Virg
> What makes LoTR even more ridiculous is the way the ring was taken from whatever-was-his-name : chopped off by a broken sword. Sheesh, that ring must really be powerful. However, nobody seems to find that a problem.
Two things to consider: first, the broken sword used to cut Sauron's hand off was very powerfully magical, and yet doing the deed was enough to break it, and second, in the battle (this was better addressed in the book than the movie) the Elves present had been using every bit of magical power they could muster in an effort to weaken Sauron's power, and despite the concerted efforts of hundreds of mages of considerable power, they were still only barely successful, and to top it off the ring corrupted Isildur almost as soon as he touched it. After that, the ring knew how long it had to wait for its master to regather his power, then directly affected fate to bring itself back into the flow of history. It corrupted everyone who touched it save one demigod, and even the Istari (Gandalf and Saruman and the few other powerful wizards mentioned) were no match for it. So yeah, it was rather powerful.
Virg
I'll take a shot at this one.
> Gandalf is trapped on a tower deep in enemy territory, and all of a sudden a giant eagle magically comes outta nowhere and delivers him to safety.
Well, Isengard wasn't "deep in enemy territory", it was next to the lands of Rohan (remember that Saruman's treachery was pivotal to the speed that was required to stop him). Also, Gwaihir (the big eagle) didn't come out of nowhere, Gandalf called to him for aid. In the movie (and the book), Gandalf told a moth to fetch Gwaihir.
> Of course, said eagle can't possibly be used elsewhere in the story!
Said eagle is the king of the eagles, and he does indeed take part in the major battle at the end of The Return of the King.
> Why can't Frodo hop on the eagle and fly to Mount Doom?
Because, like the Elves, the eagles didn't much care about the fate of humans in Middle Earth until very late in the battle (when they realized that Sauron represented a threat to more than just the humans), and by that time the eagles were more badly needed to defend Minas Tirith. Also, it's reasonable that the reason Sauron didn't throw an army after Frodo is that Sauron couldn't find Frodo, and Frodo flying across Mordor would have been much easier to find and intercept than Frodo sneaking across Mordor.
Virg
> For me, that isn't a good reason. Tell me how long it is beforehand, keep it good and interesting and you can make it as long as you want.
Well, I'm with you 100 percent, and I'll be picking this extended version up posthaste, but the reason for reducing the movie isn't because viewers won't sit that long (although it is for some). The main reason theaters like movies under three hours is because with that time frame, they can get more showings in in a day. If a movie is just 20 minutes over three hours, they lose a showing per day, and that's a lot of ticket sales lost. Movie makers are sensitive to this fact, and so they make directors cut it down to size. In this particular case, Jackson did it under the promise that he'd get to release the mondo-massive version on DVD, which is what this extended set represents.
Virg
> I only look human.
My mother is a hafling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
So, did your mother die in childbirth, or did she just pop near the end of the pregnancy?
Virg
P.S. You wouldn't happen to be Niami's kid, would you?
> Punishment is a difficult option though. Unless police can adequately prove that YOU are the one triggering the light, there's too much room for pedestrian pranksters.
This part is relatively easy. Make the actuator such that it takes the picture, then changes the light. If the strobe isn't on when the picture goes off, the light doesn't react. Therefore, one would need to run the strobe long enough for the camera to see it, which would show where it came from. If it's a pedestrian, the picture would show it, or at very least it'll show that the car in the picture wasn't where the strobe originated.
> Cameras would definitely be a deterrent, but putting up cameras that can take a large-angle photo at decent resolution, and hiring someone to scan each picture looking for suspect license plates would be outrageously expensive.
No real need for large angle of view. Sure, you wouldn't be able to spot that pedestrian, but your picture would clearly show that it wasn't (or was) the car approaching the light, so false positives wouldn't occur nearly as often. Second, since the camera would only trigger a photo when the strobe was activated, not with every passing motorist, there wouldn't be very many pictures to scan. Lastly, with positive enforcement, the number of people who would adopt the device would be relatively low, so your photo recognition people wouldn't get overwhelmed. Remember that not everyone will be using the device right away, and it only takes two or three reports of a thousand dollar fine to discourage the vast majority of the public.
Virg
> Oddly, it appears to me that the best response to problems like this is to use technology to redefine the problem. Make signals on the units used by emergency vehicles to affect traffic lights digitally signed and encrypted in a dynamic fashion - then not only would it be difficult to replicate for third parties, but you could use the same means to keep data about emergency vehicle path and response times.
Keeping information about EMV routing is a good idea, but encryption isn't. Firstly, according to the article itself, encryption makes the units more expensive, which is bad for the emergancy departments that really need them. Second, it begs a "solution" which will lead to a constant war for better encryption, which recording companies have shown is not winnable. The solution that works is surprisingly simple. Don't encrypt, and allow any signal to trigger it. However, whenever it triggers, a camera mounted on the unit takes a photograph of the vehicle triggering it, much like photo radar devices or red light cameras. Implement a "three strikes" law that states that if you're not a legitimate emergancy vehicle, and you trigger traffic signals three times, you pay a fine. This eliminates the odd false positive, and limits abuse by making the abusers pay for it. It's cheaper and more effective than encryption, and it uses technology that already exists.
Virg
Here we go again...
...gov't sanctioned murders of their own population were the number one cause of human death last century.
> > But because I don't think about shooting people with guns. Period."
> Do you have children?
Children are more likely by a huge measure to be injured by a gun accident than by an assailant. Also, the number of times where easy access to a gun would prevent injury to a child is vanishingly small. Sorry, but your statement does more for gun control than against it.
> In my state it is legal to shoot someone to prevent them from killing or causing serious bodily harm to another, or to prevent a sexual assualt. (IANAL) I think it is scary that there are people out there who would rather a person be killed, maimed, or raped than for them to fight back effectively.
The number of situations where being in such a situation, having a firearm in such situations, and being able to deploy it properly and effectively all come together are so small that it's not even worth considering. The vast majority of situations in which a person will find himself/herself do not warrant the use of a firearm. The average person on the street is more likely to get into a situation where using deadly force is inappropriate than appropriate. People who carry guns are (understandably) more likely to use them. Gun training is not mandatory, and even if a person takes a gun training course most courses do not deal with situational analysis so people don't learn when using a gun is a good idea, and when it isn't.
The simple fact is that using a firearm is intrinsically dangerous, and in ways that most people, including you by the sound of your screed, do not understand. Based on FBI statistics, you are one hundred times more likely to die in a holdup if you draw a firearm than if you leave it in your pocket, but if you were in a convenience store and a gunman pulled his piece, I'd bet my life you'd pull yours. More importantly, the "one hundred times" measure applies to everyone else in the store with you, so if I'm in the store with you your posession of a gun directly reduces my chances of surviving the holdup. Don't tell me that you'd never have to worry about missing, because despite the fact that it's utter bullshit (marksmen miss sometimes) you can't tell me which of your rounds is mispacked and won't fire properly or when your gun will jam. The simple fact is that the vast, vast majority of people do not know how to use a gun safely (which includes knowing when not to use it), so your statement of fighting back effectively is incorrect.
>
Back this up with something, please. It's a complete lie.
> If only someone would invent a device that would allow even the weak amoung us to be able to fight off one or more tough thugs... it would have to be easy enough to use that it could be mastered with little practice, since most people don't have all day to spend practicing martial arts... it would be have to be reliable... easy to mass produce... storable... hmmm... What a boon to the downtrodden masses of mankind that would be. I wonder what such a device would look like.
Well, it certainly wouldn't look like a pistol. Anyone who thinks that a handgun takes only a little practice is an idiot, you included. Reliable? You're sadly mistaken. You think you can take on multiple opponents with a handgun with just a little training? You think thugs don't use them too? You think that someone who only owns a gun to "defend themselves" is likely to be able to do it effectively, particularly in close quarters? I've fired literally millions of rounds. My target skills are quite well honed, and I would never consider carrying a gun around with me, because I know that it's much, much more likely to be a net detriment to me than a net benefit. It's easy to say that it only takes once for me to need it, but then it only takes once for me to pull it at the wrong time, or get it taken from me, or shoot a bystander by mistake. Sorry, but you're the best argument for gun control I've seen in a long time.
Okay, I have to respond to your post, since it's the most grievously incorrect.
> Seems to me that any amount of guns greater than zero would likely stop a handful of men with boxcutters.
Of course, if it was legal to take a gun on a plane in the U.S., the terrorists would have stuck with boxcutters instead of bringing their own firearms. For religious reason, I can only presume. I can't believe this weak an argument even qualifies.
Virg
> Personally, the govt spying on me doesnt bother me a lick, its what is done with the info they collect is where it gets sticky. I have no problem with the govt expanding its powers to spy/probe whatever as long as they are used legitimately.
Well, since the USA PATRIOT Act allows for undisclosed searches, and also prevents disclosure, and removes the need for accountability, how exactly do you propose to ensure that it's all being used legitimately? To toss a perfect example in the mix, it's perfectly legal under the USA PATRIOT Act for the President's staff to conduct an investigation of each of the Democratic presidential candidates, for the purpose of mining up dirt about their personal lives for use against them in the 2004 campaign. Well, okay, it's patently illegal, but then they can do the investigations without judicial oversight and they don't need to disclose that they're doing it, and they can't be held criminally liable for what they dig up, and if by chance they turn up anything that's actually a violation of law, they can enter the evidence in a court and the defending candidate can't have it removed from evidence under the Fourth Amendment. A coworker who is by trade a criminal attorney reviewed the USA PATRIOT Act and this scenario, and could find no legal reason why this couldn't happen. So, your orignal statement is correct, except that there aren't that many people as yet who consider a "Democrat" to be a "criminal". Now, if you intend to tell me that there is nobody in power in the government today who would think of doing such a thing, then I must stop taking your views seriously.
Do you like that?
Virg
> Of course I am now required by international law to point out that in fact, the US is the only country ever to use a WMD during wartime.
Incorrect. Since the moniker "WMD" is accepted to encompass nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, several countries are in with us, including Germany (mustard gas in WWI and serin gas against civilians in WWII) and France (also gas in WWI). The U.S. is currently the only country ever to use a nuclear device against an enemy in wartime, though (or any other time, for that matter).
Virg
The failure here is obvious. Person A takes car, dealer can't sell it to person B. Person A takes MP3, dealer can sell it to person B. Whether it's right or wrong, it's not proper to compare real life goods to intellectual property.
Virg
Let's not get out of hand. Firstly, the Falcon and X-wing were atmosphere rated, and second, the TIE fighter was sublight. Not fair at all. The X-wing models stand up very well to regular wind tunnel tests (we did some on hand-built models, although we couldn't get a stable flight airframe) and I'd figure the Falcon would just fall apart in this test because of its rough surface.
Virg
> I want to see them try this with the Borg cube.
Fool. Borg cubes travel in transwarp conduits. They don't have to deal with this sort of problem. Fool. Federation fool.
Virg